Senior Moderator
Posts: 5930
(8/16/07 1:16 pm) Reply
Re: Sar
I think what I am in favor of is what I have drafted for my family and that is a "no extraordinary measures" health care proxy.
If they should ever become ill and unable to make decisions for themselves, the doctors are instructed not to take any extraordinary measures (like a feeding tube, artificial respiration etc...) to keep them alive.
For me, it is a good balance between the natural and the humane.
kasandri Veteran Member
Posts: 286
(8/17/07 10:13 am) Reply
Re: SarJack Kevorkian (Doctor Death) have assisted at least 130 terminal patients to die.
Kasso, Albanian Hero, The Defender of Albanian Rights in Illyria forums. I live for Albanianism.
Commanding Moderator
Posts: 1683
(8/18/07 6:19 am) Reply
Re: Sar
Being involved with medical profession myself I must say when people are seriously ill they are usually put on morphine drips which in higher and longer dosages causes respiratory depression which is a form of speeding up the death process; in a round about way euthenasia. So even though people would like immediate results and assistance with it, it is being done in the hospitals but regarded as pain control. People get so frantic about the issue because it crosses lines of morality and ethics. Personally I have seen people suffering and it isn't a good way to go, I say let people die with dignity if they so choose to.
kasandri Veteran Member
Posts: 311
(8/18/07 6:22 am) Reply
Re: Sar
Dsurazal,
But that's immoral?
Kasso, Albanian Hero, The Defender of Albanian Rights in Illyria forums. I live for Albanianism.
Commanding Moderator
Posts: 1685
(8/18/07 6:33 am) Reply
Re: Sar
To some degrees yes. I mean usually these people are in such pain form the death process that they are highly medicated which sedates them and eliviates there pain but also makes them out of it, so to speak. So at this point you have to think, this person is dying, they are sedated (coma like state) and have no interaction with anyone or anything. Why? Usually family/patients sign DNR's (Do Not Resesitate) forms so that when they finally code nothing is done. There is also the other side of the spectrum in regards to the family pulling the plug on ventillators. Many times I have witnessed a family going through the process of deciding the time is right for there loved one to be taken off the vent, they say there final farewells and leave the hosptal while there family members pass away. It is unpleasant and of course. I personally don't think death ever seems pleasant or natural but seeing someone on the flip of the coin, not allowed pain medication, groaning for hours on end suffering seems even far more un-natural. So pick your lesser of two evils but it's easy to say one thing without having personally experienced it.
kasandri Veteran Member
Posts: 312
(8/18/07 6:46 am) Reply
Re: Sar
Dsurazal,
By legalizing euthanasia for terminally ill patients wouldn't that be morally unfair to permanently mentally ill patients who should have the same right?
Kasso, Albanian Hero, The Defender of Albanian Rights in Illyria forums. I live for Albanianism.
Commanding Moderator
Posts: 1686
(8/18/07 7:06 am) Reply
Re: Sar
I didn't really discuss mentally ill patients but I have experience there as well. I must add that there is a lot available to these people, many medications can help a lot of these people live meaningful lives. There is a big difference between a terminally ill patients and a person who is mentally ill. I have personally witnessed a ECT (Electroconvulsive therapy) and witnessed drastic changes to there psyche and demeanor. Can you please extend on why you think a mentally ill person would require euthenasia?
kasandri Veteran Member
Posts: 314
(8/18/07 7:20 am) Reply
Re: Sar
Dsurazal,
Example of an individual case: A child when she was one year young had a high temperature and suffered Brain-Melting, today 20 years old she has a mental illness linked to this tragic accident. She can be aggressive, is depressive and have temporary hallucinations but do not suffer from physical pain. Her mother take care of her. If she wants to die but against the will of her mother, should she have that right?
Kasso, Albanian Hero, The Defender of Albanian Rights in Illyria forums. I live for Albanianism.
I agree under certain prerequisites. For example you must be conscious of what you ask, meaning that you can only do it in case that you don't suffer by any sort of psychological problems.
It's been a long, long time but I know a change is gonna come...
Commanding Moderator
Posts: 1687
(8/19/07 8:38 pm) Reply
Re: Sar
I think first off you have to ask yourself, if this person is psychologically disturbed, can s/he make this decision with a clear headed decision? Probably not. Modern medicine is creating new remedies all the time. Personally, I feel unless you are terminal and are not going to be able to recouperate and live a normal quality of life than why would you want to end your life? Depression and hallucinations can be dealt with by various methods. I think having the mentality to see that your life will only deteriorate and make a conscious decision versus having a mental illness that is treatable in some regards are two totally different scenarios. I just can't see a mental illness creating a justifiable excuss for euthenasia. But I could be wrong, I really think psychiatric work is still a realitvely foreign territory for the medical field as the brain is still complexing, and a lot of it's processes are unknown.
Re: Sar
Euthanasia has been advertised in a number a romantic views - Euthanasia as the right to die. Euthanasia as aid in dying. Euthanasia as mercy, not murder.
Let us see this issue in its simplest form – as murder, not mercy. The taboo which once surrounded euthanasia, effectively prohibiting its practice, no longer exists in the progressive society of today. The generation of today are embracing something their forefathers loathed and would quite rightly stand against. Murder.
Murder, is the cold-blooded termination of another’s life. Murder is still considered to be one of the most abhorrent offences in the world. In some societies, the death penalty is the only sanction deemed fit for the occurrence of such an unforgivable crime. Conversely, in others, life is considered to be an inalienable right of every human being. Life cannot be taken away by the state, other individuals and in a time not so long ago, yourself.
Suicide, here in the United Kingdom, was treated as a crime. There were strong beliefs within society, derived from religion, that intentionally taking your own life was morally wrong. This view was reflected by the law. However, this “crime” was later decriminalised, subsequent to recognition within society, that survivors of suicide attempts needed help not punishment. There was a common acceptance of the idea that those who were suicidal needed to be shown that life was worthwhile and that they themselves were worthy of living.
Euthanasia is distinguished from murder, by many who agree with the practice, with concepts of rights, mercy and dignity. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional practice of ending an individual’s life, by act or omission, where the predominant aim is to benefit that individual in some way. Euthanasia can be; voluntary, where the victim/individual expressly requests the right to die or non-voluntary, where the individual is unable to request aid in dying. In the latter circumstance the individuals may be unconscious (i.e. in a coma), or unable to communicate for example where the individuals are in a state of paralysis hindering communication or are small children, as were the Siamese twins Mary and Jodie. Non-voluntary euthanasia may also occur were the individual is said to be mentally unable to construct a meaningless decision between life and death.
At first glance euthanasia sounds ethically and morally acceptable-but is it?
Hidden beneath the fancy language lies the reality of murder. Concealed behind the notion of rights are lethal injections. Masked behind the belief of mercy is the withdrawal of medical aid. Disguised behind the principle of dignity is the elimination of the burden on society.
Legalisation of voluntary euthanasia will result in what is commonly referred to as the ‘slippery slope’ effect. Some of those in favour of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia with the appropriate safeguards oppose the idea of non-voluntary euthanasia being permitted. Yet, if voluntary euthanasia is legalised others in favour of non-voluntary euthanasia would argue that non-voluntary euthanasia should also be permissible. After all if one form is allowed than why not the other? Why should patients who cannot expressly request euthanasia be discriminated against? Why should their right to end their life be taken away because they cannot communicate as opposed to their fellow human beings who can ask for death?
Dignity is one of the most reiterated arguments trying to validate the proposal of euthanasia. We have been told a civilised society should allow people to die with dignity and without pain – and with this statement I wholly agree.
Dignity is the value or worth which a human being has by simply existing not taking into account the actions or class of that individual.
This civilised concept has been mirrored in the abolition of death penalties; the life of a murderer is no less worthy than that of an innocent civilian.
Euthanasia is typically thought of as ‘mercy killing’, as aiding a terminally ill patient to die, to avoid the harsher symptoms of an incurable disease, intolerable pain and suffering and to evade the loss of dignity; the loss of self-worth.
However, I don’t believe a civilised society should help to effectively kill others who cannot take their own lives. Hospices and homes, catering specifically for those with terminal conditions, have been established with the sole aim to enable the suffering to die without the loss of dignity, without the loss of worth and without pain.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies